FREE SHIPPING over $40
OVER 9000 FIVE-STAR REVIEWS
5% OFF ALL SUBSCRIPTIONS
100% HAPPINESS GUARANTEE
Analyze Diet
0
Home / Equine Research Bank / Front Vet Sci / A Systematic Review of the Quality of IV Fluid Therapy in Ve...
Frontiers in veterinary science2017; 4; 127; doi: 10.3389/fvets.2017.00127

A Systematic Review of the Quality of IV Fluid Therapy in Veterinary Medicine.

Abstract: To evaluate the quality of the veterinary literature investigating IV fluid therapy in dogs, cats, horses, and cattle. Methods: Systematic review. Methods: The preferred reporting of items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) was employed for systematic review of all relevant IV fluid therapy manuscripts published from January 1969 through December 2016 in the Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux International (CABI) database. Independent grading systems used to evaluate manuscripts included the updated CONsolidated Standards of Reporting Trials 2012 checklist, risk of bias for animal intervention studies, criteria for levels of evidence, and methodological quality (Jadad scale). The quality of articles published before and after 2010 was compared. Results: One hundred and thirty-nine articles (63 dogs, 7 cats, 39 horses, 30 cattle) from 7,258 met the inclusion criteria. More than 50% of the manuscripts did not comply with minimal requirements for reporting randomized controlled trials. The most non-compliant items included identification of specific predefined objectives or a hypothesis, identification of trial design, how sample size was determined, randomization, and blinding procedures. Most studies were underpowered and at risk for selection, performance, and detection bias. The overall quality of the articles improved for articles published after 2010. Conclusions: Most of the veterinary literature investigating the administration of IV fluid therapy in dogs, cats, horses, and cattle is descriptive, does not comply with standards for evidence, or provide adequate translation to clinical practice. Authors should employ and journal editors should enforce international consensus recommendations and guidelines for publication of data from animal experiments investigating IV fluid therapy.
Get Full Text
Publication Date: 2017-08-14 PubMed ID: 28856137PubMed Central: PMC5557817DOI: 10.3389/fvets.2017.00127Google Scholar: Lookup
The Equine Research Bank provides access to a large database of publicly available scientific literature. Inclusion in the Research Bank does not imply endorsement of study methods or findings by Mad Barn.
LinkedInCopy
  • Journal Article

Summary

This research summary has been generated with artificial intelligence and may contain errors and omissions. Refer to the original study to confirm details provided. Submit correction.

The research article presents a systematic review of the quality of intravenous (IV) fluid therapy literature in the veterinary practice, focusing on dogs, cats, horses, and cattle. The article emphasizes that majority of related publications do not comply with essential reporting standards, leading to a lack of quality evidence to inform clinical practice.

Methods

  • The researchers utilized the preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) to carry out a comprehensive review of literature published from January 1969 to December 2016. The Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux International (CABI) database was the primary source of the publications.
  • The papers were evaluated using independent grading systems, including the CONsolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) 2012 checklist, Risk of Bias for Animal Intervention Studies, Criteria for Levels of Evidence, and the Jadad scale for methodological quality.
  • A comparison was made between the quality of articles published prior to 2010 and after 2010 to assess potential improvements over time.

Results

  • Out of 7,258 studies, 139 met the inclusion criteria- 63 were about dogs, 7 about cats, 39 about horses, and 30 cattle-related.
  • Over halve of these papers did not meet the minimum requirements for reporting randomized controlled trials.
  • Most papers lacked identification of predefined objectives or hypothesis, clear trial design, explanation of sample size determination, and procedures for randomization and blinding.
  • Many of the studies were found to be underpowered and at a high risk of selection, performance, and detection bias.
  • Overall, the quality of articles improved for papers published after the year 2010.

Conclusions

  • According to the review, most literature on IV fluid therapy administration in dogs, cats, horses, and cattle is mainly descriptive and fails to meet evidence standards or provide practical translations for clinical applications.
  • The researchers recommend that authors should abide by and editors should enforce international consensus recommendations and guidelines for publishing data from animal experiments investigating IV fluid therapy.

Cite This Article

APA
Muir WW, Ueyama Y, Noel-Morgan J, Kilborne A, Page J. (2017). A Systematic Review of the Quality of IV Fluid Therapy in Veterinary Medicine. Front Vet Sci, 4, 127. https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2017.00127

Publication

Frontiers in veterinary science
ISSN: 2297-1769
NlmUniqueID: 101666658
Country: Switzerland
Language: English
Volume: 4
Pages: 127
PII: 127

Researcher Affiliations

Muir, William W
  • QTest Labs, Columbus, OH, United States.
  • College of Veterinary Medicine, Lincoln Memorial University, Harrogate, TN, United States.
Ueyama, Yukie
  • QTest Labs, Columbus, OH, United States.
Noel-Morgan, Jessica
  • Center for Cardiovascular and Pulmonary Research, The Research Institute at Nationwide Children's Hospital, Columbus, OH, United States.
Kilborne, Allison
  • Department of Veterinary Clinical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine, Columbus, OH, United States.
Page, Jessica
  • Department of Veterinary Clinical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine, Columbus, OH, United States.

References

This article includes 50 references
  1. Kudnig ST, Mama K. Perioperative fluid therapy.. J Am Vet Med Assoc 2002 Oct 15;221(8):1112-21.
    doi: 10.2460/javma.2002.221.1112pubmed: 12387379google scholar: lookup
  2. Driessen B, Brainard B. Fluid therapy for the traumatized patient. J Vet Emerg Crit Care (2006) 16:276–99.
    doi: 10.1111/j.1476-4431.2006.00184.xgoogle scholar: lookup
  3. Davis H, Jensen T, Johnson A, Knowles P, Meyer R, Rucinsky R, Shafford H. 2013 AAHA/AAFP fluid therapy guidelines for dogs and cats.. J Am Anim Hosp Assoc 2013 May-Jun;49(3):149-59.
    doi: 10.5326/JAAHA-MS-5868pubmed: 23645543google scholar: lookup
  4. Fielding L. Crystalloid and colloid therapy.. Vet Clin North Am Equine Pract 2014 Aug;30(2):415-25, viii-ix.
    doi: 10.1016/j.cveq.2014.04.008pubmed: 25016499google scholar: lookup
  5. Roussel AJ. Fluid therapy in mature cattle.. Vet Clin North Am Food Anim Pract 2014 Jul;30(2):429-39, vi-vii.
    doi: 10.1016/j.cvfa.2014.04.005pubmed: 24980730google scholar: lookup
  6. Puri VK. Colloid versus crystalloid war--a time for truce.. Crit Care Med 1990 Apr;18(4):457-8.
    doi: 10.1097/00003246-199004000-00027pubmed: 2136245google scholar: lookup
  7. Hillman K, Bishop G, Bristow P. The crystalloid versus colloid controversy: present status. Baillires Clin Anaestesiol (1997) 11:1–13.
    doi: 10.1016/S0950-3501(97)80003-7google scholar: lookup
  8. Finfer S, Bellomo R, Boyce N, French J, Myburgh J, Norton R. A comparison of albumin and saline for fluid resuscitation in the intensive care unit.. N Engl J Med 2004 May 27;350(22):2247-56.
    doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa040232pubmed: 15163774google scholar: lookup
  9. Jabaley C, Dudaryk R. Fluid resuscitation for trauma patients: crystalloids versus colloids. Curr Anesthesiol Rep (2014) 4:216–24.
    doi: 10.1007/s40140-014-0067-4google scholar: lookup
  10. Edwards MR, Mythen MG. Fluid therapy in critical illness.. Extrem Physiol Med 2014;3:16.
    doi: 10.1186/2046-7648-3-16pmc: PMC4178546pubmed: 25276346google scholar: lookup
  11. Tatara T. Context-sensitive fluid therapy in critical illness.. J Intensive Care 2016;4:20.
    doi: 10.1186/s40560-016-0150-7pmc: PMC4793702pubmed: 26985394google scholar: lookup
  12. Frazee EN, Leedahl DD, Kashani KB. Key Controversies in Colloid and Crystalloid Fluid Utilization.. Hosp Pharm 2015 Jun;50(6):446-53.
    doi: 10.1310/hpj5006-446pmc: PMC4568103pubmed: 26405334google scholar: lookup
  13. Raghunathan K, Murray PT, Beattie WS, Lobo DN, Myburgh J, Sladen R, Kellum JA, Mythen MG, Shaw AD. Choice of fluid in acute illness: what should be given? An international consensus.. Br J Anaesth 2014 Nov;113(5):772-83.
    doi: 10.1093/bja/aeu301pubmed: 25326478google scholar: lookup
  14. Osawa EA, Rhodes A, Landoni G, Galas FR, Fukushima JT, Park CH, Almeida JP, Nakamura RE, Strabelli TM, Pileggi B, Leme AC, Fominskiy E, Sakr Y, Lima M, Franco RA, Chan RP, Piccioni MA, Mendes P, Menezes SR, Bruno T, Gaiotto FA, Lisboa LA, Dallan LA, Hueb AC, Pomerantzeff PM, Kalil Filho R, Jatene FB, Auler Junior JO, Hajjar LA. Effect of Perioperative Goal-Directed Hemodynamic Resuscitation Therapy on Outcomes Following Cardiac Surgery: A Randomized Clinical Trial and Systematic Review.. Crit Care Med 2016 Apr;44(4):724-33.
    doi: 10.1097/CCM.0000000000001479pubmed: 26646462google scholar: lookup
  15. Ripollés J, Espinosa Á, Casans R, Tirado A, Abad A, Fernández C, Calvo J. Colloids versus crystalloids in objective-guided fluid therapy, systematic review and meta-analysis. Too early or too late to draw conclusions.. Braz J Anesthesiol 2015 Jul-Aug;65(4):281-91.
    doi: 10.1016/j.bjan.2014.07.003pubmed: 26123145google scholar: lookup
  16. James MFM. Context-sensitive fluid administration: what, when and how much?. S Afr J Anaesth Analg (2015) 21:38–9.
  17. Roberts I, Kwan I, Evans P, Haig S. Does animal experimentation inform human healthcare? Observations from a systematic review of international animal experiments on fluid resuscitation.. BMJ 2002 Feb 23;324(7335):474-6.
    doi: 10.1136/bmj.324.7335.474pmc: PMC1122396pubmed: 11859053google scholar: lookup
  18. Naumann DN, Beaven A, Dretzke J, Hutchings S, Midwinter MJ. Searching For the Optimal Fluid to Restore Microcirculatory Flow Dynamics After Haemorrhagic Shock: A Systematic Review of Preclinical Studies.. Shock 2016 Dec;46(6):609-622.
    doi: 10.1097/SHK.0000000000000687pubmed: 27465755google scholar: lookup
  19. Mapstone J, Roberts I, Evans P. Fluid resuscitation strategies: a systematic review of animal trials.. J Trauma 2003 Sep;55(3):571-89.
    doi: 10.1097/01.TA.0000062968.69867.6Fpubmed: 14501908google scholar: lookup
  20. Pound P, Ebrahim S, Sandercock P, Bracken MB, Roberts I. Where is the evidence that animal research benefits humans?. BMJ 2004 Feb 28;328(7438):514-7.
    doi: 10.1136/bmj.328.7438.514pmc: PMC351856pubmed: 14988196google scholar: lookup
  21. Moher D, Hopewell S, Schulz KF, Montori V, Gøtzsche PC, Devereaux PJ, Elbourne D, Egger M, Altman DG. CONSORT 2010 explanation and elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials.. Int J Surg 2012;10(1):28-55.
    doi: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2011.10.001pubmed: 22036893google scholar: lookup
  22. Hooijmans CR, Rovers MM, de Vries RB, Leenaars M, Ritskes-Hoitinga M, Langendam MW. SYRCLE's risk of bias tool for animal studies.. BMC Med Res Methodol 2014 Mar 26;14:43.
    doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-14-43pmc: PMC4230647pubmed: 24667063google scholar: lookup
  23. Kabisch M, Ruckes C, Seibert-Grafe M, Blettner M. Randomized controlled trials: part 17 of a series on evaluation of scientific publications.. Dtsch Arztebl Int 2011 Sep;108(39):663-8.
    doi: 10.3238/arztebl.2011.0663pmc: PMC3196997pubmed: 22013494google scholar: lookup
  24. Jadad AR, Moore RA, Carroll D, Jenkinson C, Reynolds DJ, Gavaghan DJ, McQuay HJ. Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: is blinding necessary?. Control Clin Trials 1996 Feb;17(1):1-12.
    doi: 10.1016/0197-2456(95)00134-4pubmed: 8721797google scholar: lookup
  25. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement.. Int J Surg 2010;8(5):336-41.
    doi: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2010.02.007pubmed: 20171303google scholar: lookup
  26. Kilkenny C, Browne WJ, Cuthill IC, Emerson M, Altman DG. Improving bioscience research reporting: the ARRIVE guidelines for reporting animal research.. PLoS Biol 2010 Jun 29;8(6):e1000412.
    doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.1000412pmc: PMC2893951pubmed: 20613859google scholar: lookup
  27. Pannucci CJ, Wilkins EG. Identifying and avoiding bias in research.. Plast Reconstr Surg 2010 Aug;126(2):619-625.
    doi: 10.1097/PRS.0b013e3181de24bcpmc: PMC2917255pubmed: 20679844google scholar: lookup
  28. Hooijmans CR, Ritskes-Hoitinga M. Progress in using systematic reviews of animal studies to improve translational research.. PLoS Med 2013;10(7):e1001482.
    doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001482pmc: PMC3712909pubmed: 23874162google scholar: lookup
  29. Berger VW, Alperson SY. A general framework for the evaluation of clinical trial quality.. Rev Recent Clin Trials 2009 May;4(2):79-88.
    doi: 10.2174/157488709788186021pmc: PMC2694951pubmed: 19463104google scholar: lookup
  30. White BJ, Larson RL. Systematic evaluation of scientific research for clinical relevance and control of bias to improve clinical decision making.. J Am Vet Med Assoc 2015 Sep 1;247(5):496-500.
    doi: 10.2460/javma.247.5.496pubmed: 26295554google scholar: lookup
  31. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist GE, Kunz R, Falck-Ytter Y, Alonso-Coello P, Schünemann HJ. GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations.. BMJ 2008 Apr 26;336(7650):924-6.
    doi: 10.1136/bmj.39489.470347.ADpmc: PMC2335261pubmed: 18436948google scholar: lookup
  32. Giuffrida MA. Defining the primary research question in veterinary clinical studies.. J Am Vet Med Assoc 2016 Sep 1;249(5):547-51.
    doi: 10.2460/javma.249.5.547pubmed: 27556269google scholar: lookup
  33. Motulsky H. Intuititive Biostatistics: A Nonmathematical Guide to Statistical Thinking. 2nd ed New York: Oxford University Press, Inc; (2010).
  34. Whitley E, Ball J. Statistics review 4: sample size calculations.. Crit Care 2002 Aug;6(4):335-41.
    doi: 10.1186/cc1493pmc: PMC137461pubmed: 12225610google scholar: lookup
  35. Lesaffre E. Superiority, equivalence, and non-inferiority trials.. Bull NYU Hosp Jt Dis 2008;66(2):150-4.
    pubmed: 18537788
  36. Berendt L, Callréus T, Petersen LG, Bach KF, Poulsen HE, Dalhoff K. From protocol to published report: a study of consistency in the reporting of academic drug trials.. Trials 2016 Feb 19;17:100.
    doi: 10.1186/s13063-016-1189-4pmc: PMC4761223pubmed: 26895826google scholar: lookup
  37. Eng J. Sample size estimation: how many individuals should be studied?. Radiology 2003 May;227(2):309-13.
    doi: 10.1148/radiol.2272012051pubmed: 12732691google scholar: lookup
  38. Antes G, Chalmers I. Under-reporting of clinical trials is unethical.. Lancet 2003 Mar 22;361(9362):978-9.
    doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(03)12838-3pubmed: 12660049google scholar: lookup
  39. Schulz KF, Grimes DA. Sample size calculations in randomised trials: mandatory and mystical.. Lancet 2005 Apr 9-15;365(9467):1348-53.
    doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(05)61034-3pubmed: 15823387google scholar: lookup
  40. Moyé L. Statistical Methods for Cardiovascular Researchers.. Circ Res 2016 Feb 5;118(3):439-53.
    doi: 10.1161/CIRCRESAHA.115.306305pmc: PMC4745995pubmed: 26846639google scholar: lookup
  41. Higgins JP, Altman DG, Gøtzsche PC, Jüni P, Moher D, Oxman AD, Savovic J, Schulz KF, Weeks L, Sterne JA. The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials.. BMJ 2011 Oct 18;343:d5928.
    doi: 10.1136/bmj.d5928pmc: PMC3196245pubmed: 22008217google scholar: lookup
  42. Pintea S. The relevance of results in clinical research: statistical, practical and clinical significance. J Cognit Behav Psychother (2010) 10:101–14.
  43. Kukull WA, Ganguli M. Generalizability: the trees, the forest, and the low-hanging fruit.. Neurology 2012 Jun 5;78(23):1886-91.
    doi: 10.1212/WNL.0b013e318258f812pmc: PMC3369519pubmed: 22665145google scholar: lookup
  44. Peters JL, Sutton AJ, Jones DR, Rushton L, Abrams KR. A systematic review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of animal experiments with guidelines for reporting.. J Environ Sci Health B 2006;41(7):1245-58.
    doi: 10.1080/03601230600857130pubmed: 16923604google scholar: lookup
  45. Leenaars M, Hooijmans CR, van Veggel N, ter Riet G, Leeflang M, Hooft L, van der Wilt GJ, Tillema A, Ritskes-Hoitinga M. A step-by-step guide to systematically identify all relevant animal studies.. Lab Anim 2012 Jan;46(1):24-31.
    doi: 10.1258/la.2011.011087pmc: PMC3265183pubmed: 22037056google scholar: lookup
  46. Taylor CF, Field D, Sansone SA, Aerts J, Apweiler R, Ashburner M, Ball CA, Binz PA, Bogue M, Booth T, Brazma A, Brinkman RR, Michael Clark A, Deutsch EW, Fiehn O, Fostel J, Ghazal P, Gibson F, Gray T, Grimes G, Hancock JM, Hardy NW, Hermjakob H, Julian RK Jr, Kane M, Kettner C, Kinsinger C, Kolker E, Kuiper M, Le Novère N, Leebens-Mack J, Lewis SE, Lord P, Mallon AM, Marthandan N, Masuya H, McNally R, Mehrle A, Morrison N, Orchard S, Quackenbush J, Reecy JM, Robertson DG, Rocca-Serra P, Rodriguez H, Rosenfelder H, Santoyo-Lopez J, Scheuermann RH, Schober D, Smith B, Snape J, Stoeckert CJ Jr, Tipton K, Sterk P, Untergasser A, Vandesompele J, Wiemann S. Promoting coherent minimum reporting guidelines for biological and biomedical investigations: the MIBBI project.. Nat Biotechnol 2008 Aug;26(8):889-96.
    doi: 10.1038/nbt.1411pmc: PMC2771753pubmed: 18688244google scholar: lookup
  47. Korevaar DA, Hooft L, ter Riet G. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of preclinical studies: publication bias in laboratory animal experiments.. Lab Anim 2011 Oct;45(4):225-30.
    doi: 10.1258/la.2011.010121pubmed: 21737463google scholar: lookup
  48. Jüni P, Witschi A, Bloch R, Egger M. The hazards of scoring the quality of clinical trials for meta-analysis.. JAMA 1999 Sep 15;282(11):1054-60.
    doi: 10.1001/jama.282.11.1054pubmed: 10493204google scholar: lookup
  49. Henderson VC, Kimmelman J, Fergusson D, Grimshaw JM, Hackam DG. Threats to validity in the design and conduct of preclinical efficacy studies: a systematic review of guidelines for in vivo animal experiments.. PLoS Med 2013;10(7):e1001489.
    doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001489pmc: PMC3720257pubmed: 23935460google scholar: lookup
  50. Ritskes-Hoitinga M, Leenaars M, Avey M, Rovers M, Scholten R. Systematic reviews of preclinical animal studies can make significant contributions to health care and more transparent translational medicine.. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2014 Mar 28;(3):ED000078.
    doi: 10.1002/14651858.ED000078pubmed: 24719910google scholar: lookup

Citations

This article has been cited 10 times.
  1. Spadari A, Gialletti R, Gandini M, Valle E, Cerullo A, Cavallini D, Bertoletti A, Rinnovati R, Forni G, Scilimati N, Giusto G. Short-Term Survival and Postoperative Complications Rates in Horses Undergoing Colic Surgery: A Multicentre Study.. Animals (Basel) 2023 Mar 20;13(6).
    doi: 10.3390/ani13061107pubmed: 36978647google scholar: lookup
  2. Muir WW, Hughes D, Silverstein DC. Editorial: Fluid Therapy in Animals: Physiologic Principles and Contemporary Fluid Resuscitation Considerations.. Front Vet Sci 2021;8:744080.
    doi: 10.3389/fvets.2021.744080pubmed: 34746284google scholar: lookup
  3. Woodcock TE, Michel CC. Advances in the Starling Principle and Microvascular Fluid Exchange; Consequences and Implications for Fluid Therapy.. Front Vet Sci 2021;8:623671.
    doi: 10.3389/fvets.2021.623671pubmed: 33889604google scholar: lookup
  4. Crabtree NE, Epstein KL. Current Concepts in Fluid Therapy in Horses.. Front Vet Sci 2021;8:648774.
    doi: 10.3389/fvets.2021.648774pubmed: 33855057google scholar: lookup
  5. Yiew XT, Bateman SW, Hahn RG, Bersenas AME, Muir WW. Understanding Volume Kinetics: The Role of Pharmacokinetic Modeling and Analysis in Fluid Therapy.. Front Vet Sci 2020;7:587106.
    doi: 10.3389/fvets.2020.587106pubmed: 33330713google scholar: lookup
  6. Yiew XT, Bateman SW, Hahn RG, Bersenas AME. Evaluation of the Distribution and Elimination of Balanced Isotonic Crystalloid, 5% Hypertonic Saline, and 6% Tetrastarch 130/0.4 Using Volume Kinetic Modeling and Analysis in Healthy Conscious Cats.. Front Vet Sci 2020;7:587564.
    doi: 10.3389/fvets.2020.587564pubmed: 33313076google scholar: lookup
  7. Rabozzi R, Oricco S, Meneghini C, Bucci M, Franci P. Evaluation of the caudal vena cava diameter to abdominal aortic diameter ratio and the caudal vena cava respiratory collapsibility for predicting fluid responsiveness in a heterogeneous population of hospitalized conscious dogs.. J Vet Med Sci 2020 Mar 24;82(3):337-344.
    doi: 10.1292/jvms.19-0028pubmed: 31932519google scholar: lookup
  8. Kopper JJ, Bolger ME, Kogan CJ, Schott HC 2nd. Outcome and complications in horses administered sterile or non-sterile fluids intravenously.. J Vet Intern Med 2019 Nov;33(6):2739-2745.
    doi: 10.1111/jvim.15631pubmed: 31609037google scholar: lookup
  9. Rufiange M, Rousseau-Blass F, Pang DSJ. Incomplete reporting of experimental studies and items associated with risk of bias in veterinary research.. Vet Rec Open 2019;6(1):e000322.
    doi: 10.1136/vetreco-2018-000322pubmed: 31205725google scholar: lookup
  10. Noel-Morgan J, Muir WW. Anesthesia-Associated Relative Hypovolemia: Mechanisms, Monitoring, and Treatment Considerations.. Front Vet Sci 2018;5:53.
    doi: 10.3389/fvets.2018.00053pubmed: 29616230google scholar: lookup
Subscribe to our newsletter
Join 99,359 horse owners like you who receive our email updates on horse health and nutrition.